Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J
1. Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the appellants as well as Mr. V.S. Sahay, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State.
2. The present appeal has been preferred by the appellants challenging the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 12.07.2006 passed by Additional District and Sessions Judge, F.T.C. I, Giridih in Sessions Trial Case No.35 of 2001 whereby and whereunder appellants were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for the offence punishable under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code, rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence punishable under Section 323 of the I.P.C., rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence punishable under Section 324/34 of the I.P.C. and rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence punishable under Section 325/34 of the I.P.C.
3. The prosecution case is based on written report by one Wazir Mian (informant) stating inter alia that on 07.06.1999 at about 6:30 a.m., while informant and his family were ploughing a field, some arguments took place between him and Chutari Mian. Later, Chutari Mian returned along with four other persons who were armed with weapons and attacked informant and his family members. Chutari struck informant and his son with a rod causing severe injuries, while other accused persons assaulted informant's family members with stick. The incident was witnessed by neighbours, who intervened.
4. On the basis of above written report of the informant, Jamua P.S. Case No.68 of 1999 was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 324, 325, 307 of the Indian Penal Code.
5. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the appellants for the aforesaid offences and accordingly, cognizance was taken and subsequently, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Charges were framed against the accused persons which were read over and explained to them to which they did not plead guilty and claimed to be tried.
6. In the course of trial, altogether twelve witnesses were examined by the prosecution and following documentary evidence were also adduced:
Exhibit 1 : Written application
Exhibit 2, 2/1 & 2/2 : Injury reports issued by P.W.-7
Exhibit 3, 3/1, 3/2, 3/3 & ¾ : Injury reports issued by Dr.
Ramayan Ram at P.H.C. Jamua
Exhibit 4, 4/1, 4/2 and 4/3 : Inspection report of the injured by I.O. (P.W.-12)
Exhibit 5 : First Information Report
7. After conclusion of trial, the appellants were held guilty for the aforesaid offences and sentenced as stated above which has been assailed in this appeal.
8. Learned counsel for the appellants without touching the merits of the judgment has confined himself to the point of non-extension of benefit of provisions of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to the appellants to which they deserve. The plea was raised before the learned Trial Court but without specifying/recording any special reasons, the appellants have been denied the aforesaid benefit only on account of seriousness of the offence.
9. It is further submitted that the occurrence is of the year 1999 and more than two decades have been lapsed. Admittedly, the occurrence took place in a sudden manner due to land dispute and there were exchange of assault from both parties. The appellants have been held guilty for the offences under Sections 323, 324 and 325 r.w. Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Maximum sentence is awarded to the extent of R.I. of three years for the offence under Section 325 r.w. Section 34 of the I.P.C. It is appellants' first offence and they have never been convicted for any other offence at all. This fact was also pleaded before the learned Trial Court but has not been taken into consideration without recording any special reasons as required under law. Hence, the appellants deserve the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958.
10. To the above extent of argument, learned A.P.P. appearing for the State has raised no objection. However, he has defended the impugned judgment and order on merits.
11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, nature of offence alleged to have been committed by appellants, their age, character and antecedents, it appears expedient in the interest of justice to extend the benefit of Section 4 of the Probation of Offenders Act, 1958 to the appellants instead of awarding substantive sentence of imprisonment as awarded by the learned Trial Court. Therefore, this appeal is dismissed on merits with modification in sentence to the extent mentioned above. The appellants are directed to appear before the concerned trial court within two months from the date of this judgment. The learned trial court shall call upon a report from District Probation Officer and instead of undergoing substantive sentence of imprisonment release the appellants upon furnishing the bond of Rs.10,000/- with one surety to maintain peace and be of good behaviour for a period of one year from the date of furnishing bond to the satisfaction of concerned trial court. In case of violation of the terms and conditions of the bond, the appellants shall be called upon by the concerned trial court to appear and receive the sentences awarded to them.
12. Let a copy of this judgment along with Trial Court record be sent back to the concerned Trial Court for information and needful.
13. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.
